Mamiya soft vs Bronica sharp lenses?

[ron_meyer]

A general question from someone looking to venture into MF cameras.

 

I had a salesman tell me that the new Bronica lenses are definitely

sharper that any of the Mamiya lenses. At the time we were discussing

645 camera systems. I generally do landscape/architecture, travel

photography and the salesman recommended Bronica over the Mamiya,

unless you were primarily into portraits. Then the softer Mamiya

lenses would be a better route.

 

I relayed this info to a retired professional photographer who used a

RB67 for wedding/portrait photos. He said in his experience the

Mamiya lenses were NOT soft. In fact he had problems with the RB

lenses for portraits because they were too sharp. So he thought the

salemans didnt know his stuff. The retired photographer also was a

manager of a large photo store many years ago so he really knew

cameras well at one time (perhaps he is not up on current products)

 

Who is right? Is there a difference between the Mamiya 645 lenses and

those for the RB that could account for his experience? Are the Mamiya

645 lenses really considered "soft" or is the Bronica just so much

sharper? I am interested in the 645 format because I would like

something lighter and smaller for travel.

 

Thanks in advance for your opinions!

[Marc453]

I've heard the opposite, that Bronica was soft and that the new (?) Mamiya lenses were sharper. I own Bronica ETRS bodies and lenses. The 75mm MC is very sharp (at least to me and my customers). I also have a 150 F/3.5 and I'm real happy with it, and a 40mm f/4 and its sharp too, at least as far as I can tell. I'm not one to expect ultra resoluton from except from an 8X10 negative. I also shoot with my lenses stopped down to f/8 at a minimum.

As far as trusting us, people you don't even know, don't. Go out and rent the prequisite system and shoot some photos. All cameras require some compromises, price, weight, system features, etc.

For backpacking, look for a rangefinder. A 6X6 SLR will kill you on the trail. Not to mention that you will need an extra lenses at a minimum.

 

For instance, the new Fuji 645Zi is an excellent camera, with excellent optics, a superior film loading system and is very light, weighting in at around a couple of pounds. The Mamiya 7 II is even smaller and lighter, but lenses are not. The Bronica is a great camera, removable lens, finder, back, yet I wouldn't even consider backpacking with one. (Way, way too heavy!)

Anyway that you're now throughly confused, go out and test drive those habies.

 

Marcus J.

[david_henderson]

I use Bronica profesionally for landscape work and in my view the lenses are pretty good for that purpose and indeed if I thought there was any significant benefit from changing to another brand then I'd do so. That said I know plenty of people who use Mamiya MF for the same purpose and in my view there isn't a lot between them that I've seen on projected slides or on prints made from them. Both brands, when focussed correctly and with depth of field appropriate to the scene, should be capable of providing prints of up to 16" x 20" of acceptable sharpness at normal viewing distances using quality film stock such as

Provia 100F, Velvia or Astia.

 

Whilst within these parameters I'm sure that either brand will perform well for you (and therefore that the choice between them should be made on other criteria), if you need truly exceptional sharpness you could think about the following

 

1. Buy a rangefinder. All sorts of issues concerning their flexibility, but the lenses are very sharp indeed. The lenses on my Mamiya 7 are sharper than anything I've seen on a MF SLR and it fits the small/light criterion too. No doubt however that they are an acquired taste and they cope with certain types of shot much less well than SLR's.

 

2. Buy a system with Zeiss lenses and choose only the very best lenses from the range. This could get expensive.

 

It looks to me like the salesman is trying to get you to buy the Bronica. Maybe you should, they are fine cameras, but I don't think you should buy it because this guy misleads you about its qualities.

 

Finally have you thought about the Pentax 645N? That has great lenses too.

[roger_krueger]

My guess is this just means he gets better commission on the Bronica, or is merely repeating what the Bronica rep told him.

 

11th commandment: Thou shalt not trust salesmen!!

[shambrick007]

Come on! How "soft" do you expect a mainstream manufacturer, modern medium format, professional grade lens to be?!?!? Buy what you want- screw the salesmen.

[simon_gammelin]

Damn! That's it!

 

I've been poring over Annie Liebowitz's work, trying to figure out why

the subjects of her portraits are always so fuzzy as to be

unrecognizable. Too much vaseline on the lens? Stacking of those

cheapo Cokin soft filters? Or are Annie's eyes going so much that she

just can't focus? But now we know: it's because she uses Mamiya! Such

a simple answer, all along, and until this Bronica salesman came along

to enlighten Ron, nobody could figure it out!

 

Sheldon's right, of course; no major camera company (B, F, H, M, P, or

R) could sell tens of thousands of MF lenses to countless working

professionals if the company's lenses were "soft." They all make a lot

of very sharp lenses, and though some lenses in each company's lineup

may be marginally less sharp than others made by that company, to

characterize one brand as universally sharper than another is

nonsense. By the way, the tests at photodo.com aren't perfect, but

they do help illustrate this.

[alan_schietzsch]

I have to agree with the other posters - they are all sharp. Let me

Illustrate: while working in a Hassy-based studio one of our C/M

bodies packed up, so I brought my own Bronica GS-1 in so we

could stay in production. When printing the negs, there was NO

difference in colour pack or density, and the sharpness was

visually identical. This is with the same lights, subject,

background, and photographer, so the camera/lens is the only

variable. The flyer was completed on time and no difference (we

were corncerned BEFORE we tried it) could be seen. Maybe

instruments could see some difference, but 2 pros, our

manager, and the client's eyes couldn't see any. What else

matters?

[Spearhead]

There are at hundreds of things that will affect the end results of your photographs. Relative sharpness of two modern lenses is not one of them.<p>

 

You may even want to think about the value of sharpness, I'd recommend <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/opinion/html/sharpness.htm">this article.</a>

[david_goldfarb]

Jeff, that's a great article. Should be mandatory reading on photo.net.